Saw this on teh interwebs today - a CBC article titled "Does it matter who owns Black art?"
https://www.cbc.ca/arts/does-it-matter-who-owns-black-art-1.6440252?cmp=DM_Display_PopularNow_CBCArts
The article by the way never comes to a formal conclusion (not that it has to), but it seems to say that while of course anyone can purchase and own art, it does still somehow "matter" if people of the Black community own Black art in terms of telling a story.
(as a side note I see the CBC consistently spells is as Black with a capital "B", which I understand is the new progressive norm).
The argument can certainly extend past Black art to art from any marginalized community. To me what comes to mind is indigenous art. I have a small collection of soapstone carvings done by Inuit artists, and I have three art prints by first nations artists hanging in my office.
This goes beyond who makes the art, which is a separate debate. Can or should a white artist use Black (or indigenous) themes, or should those be reserved for Black artists?
But instead - is it acceptable for white people to buy Black art (or indigenous, or other)? How do you balance the wants of a community to keep ownership over it's cultural heritage, with the understandable desire of artists to profit from their own works? (soapstone carvings is a not insignificant industry in the otherwise quite poor Canadian arctic)
No, it does not matter who own art. Certainly not ethnicity as a criterion.
But I think the most outstanding pieces should be accessible to the public in museums etc.
Buying art from other cultures-> no. Thats how its done. It only becomes iffy when its stuff that has been stolen and is being sold amongst the powerful with those responsible not seeing a penny.
Creating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that. For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
When you get rich white suburban kids going acting like gangster rappers and going on about being from the hood and all that shit though...no.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMBuying art from other cultures-> no. Thats how its done. It only becomes iffy when its stuff that has been stolen and is being sold amongst the powerful with those responsible not seeing a penny.
Creating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that. For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
When you get rich white suburban kids going acting like gangster rappers and going on about being from the hood and all that shit though...no.
I've never liked the "punching up/punching down" dichotomy. It basically means certain groups can never be criticized, regardless of how right or wrong they might be.
Music is an interesting aspect to this question. I know Eminem, or even Vanilla Ice, were criticized for appropriating rap music back in the 90s. But these days Hip Hop *IS* popular music. Rock and roll is old people music (and yes, it was appropriated from Black musicians). How can a white person even make music without sounding like Hip Hop?
Considering that owning art is difficult to distinguish from "displaying" art, it does matter a great deal - for reasons BB alluded to. Displaying art is telling a story, and this entails a degree of control from the person telling that story. Public institutions (or minimally public-facing institutions) can at least enable multiple stakeholders to have a voice through a variety of mechanism. Private collectors can usually dictate the terms.
Art, or esthetic objects of all sorts, have been traded forever, including to people outside one's own group. The difficulty, when it comes to the 19th century, is to figure out what where the transactions that were "free-ish" and which ones were more coerced by material or political difficulties and circumstances. Many flatten out all transactions into "colonial extractions": it seems evident when clearly sacred objects were sold by groups (or even individuals, unauthorized to do so) under duress. The case is much less clear say, in the case of tourist art of the 19th century, which Haudenosaunee or Mi'kmaq artists clearly produced to sell white tourists.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 12:09:05 PMI've never liked the "punching up/punching down" dichotomy. It basically means certain groups can never be criticized, regardless of how right or wrong they might be.
Eh?
How on earth does it mean that?
I can see arguments that sometimes it matters - not as a fundamental truth, but contextually.
I would not want to undermine the ability of non-white artists to survive from their art by limiting their potential market. Like... I think NW Indigenous art is pretty cool. If it always matters that the owners of art are from the communities that produced it, then I (and other people who aren't NW Indigenous) ought not to support the artists by buying their work - and that's going to make it much harder for those artists to make ends meet.
On the flipside, I think there are plenty of cases where repatriating significant artistic objects to the originating communities can function as an act of reconciliation, can bring significant value to those communities, can add additional value to the art object by being exhibited in a different context, and so on. And I also get why individuals can get additional value from collecting art from the marginalized community they belong to, and that that can be empowering both for themselves and their communities in ways outsiders collecting the art is not. But that doesn't add up to a fundamental ought; it just adds some context which can or can not be significant, depending.
So I guess my answer is: sometimes, depending on context. Which is usually my answer, to be honest.
I think context matters.
This is specifically about art not objects that one culture considers of purely aesthetic interest but have deep significance to another culture that is more than aesthetic (normally - though not always appropriated through colonialism) - for example the Benin sculptures, the Ethiopian Tabot, arguably the Maya codices.
There is also a question of heritage and at a certain point work by an artist I think moves beyond just being works of art into something that is closer to an intangible part of a nation's heritage - Michaelangelo and da Vinci spring to mind, similarly the Goya collection at the Prado. It would, I think, be wrong for them or for a significant proportion of them to be alienated in private collections and ideally I think they should be displayed in their context.
The origin of a lot of the great galleries, rather than museums, are private collections gifted to the nation or something similar and often they are testaments to the original donors' connoisseurship. But I wonder if there is a tension and difficulty there too - think for example of, say, a middle aged white gay guy in Manhatten who has an incredible Basquiat collection. If that doesn't revert on display is something lost.
Linked to this is the value we place on certain art forms as well. There is huge desire in the UK to "re-discover" and laud British female artists - especially in the 20th century. The easiest way to do this would be to treat print and ceramics as art forms - which, in my view, they absolutely are - rather than crafts or curiousities. I think that can also apply to other artistic forms and race.
Now having said all that - and this isn't relevant to all of my comments - but I am sat in London, the centre of a former empire that looted the world. If it wasn't just stealing things, it was certainly buying them cheap and in situations where the seller is maybe in a bit of distress (for example a lot of Chinese art - even though little of it came from formal colonialism). So I'm aware that my sense of whether things should be displayed is shaped by that - of course they should but London has been, because of that empire, a place where things are displayed not where they're taken from. Linked to that is the fact that these isles have produced a lot of great literature, but no great art (maybe Turner) or classical music - so there's also less worth stealing.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2022, 12:11:22 PMConsidering that owning art is difficult to distinguish from "displaying" art, it does matter a great deal - for reasons BB alluded to. Displaying art is telling a story, and this entails a degree of control from the person telling that story. Public institutions (or minimally public-facing institutions) can at least enable multiple stakeholders to have a voice through a variety of mechanism. Private collectors can usually dictate the terms.
If Greek art is displayed in a British museum, it does tell a story, a story the British people can see and learn of. When this art is loaned to another museum in Canada, Canadians can appreciate too. However, it is done at the expense of the modern day Greeks who cannot profit from this art because it was kinda stolen in the past. I talked of Greece, but Egypt and numerous African countries come to mind. These people can not see their own art on display because it is in a foreign country that often refuse to loan it.
A good case can be made when a country is ravaged by war and instability. And many of these countries, at the time where this art was picked by Europeans and their museums, were in such a state. I am totally uncertain that any art should be given back to Afghanistan if we own it in our vaults. But what do we do if we have given back art to a country and a new government comes in and declares such art heretical and wants to destroy it?
We want people to enjoy it, be we don't want to lose it forever either.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMCreating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that. For instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
When you get rich white suburban kids going acting like gangster rappers and going on about being from the hood and all that shit though...no.
A movie or tv series is a form of art, just as music. Norway and Denmark weren't involved in the making of the hugely popular tv Series Vikings about Ragnar Lothbrook and his sons.
There was a tv series about Greek gods living in the modern world. There weren't any Greek actors, no Greek producers and it wasn't shot in Greece either. You had Americans pretending to be ancient Greek Gods.
The Rome TV series was made by the BBC. The lead actors were British.
How is all of this different than the white kid talking thrash and making crappy music? Should we cancel Eminem because he's white?
I remember a black artist denouncing white singers who sang hip hop, saying it was black culture. Cultural appropriation. Country was for whites, hip hop, rap and soul was for Blacks.
Since Metal music is most definitely a predominantly white music style, most appreciated by white people and originally created by white folks from England. Do we forbid Welsh artists from performing this music? Should I follow the racist morons who call for black metal singers to go back to their jungle and stick to rap? I'd hate to do it, 'cause I really like diversity in metal, I like the Hu and their Mongol singing, I appreciate Quebec bands that sing about Viking folk tales, there a Spanish and Brazilian that I like listening too. I believe some Black Americans are great singers or guitar players in their bands. I really like Howard Jones and I think it's a shame he had to leave Killswitch Engage due to his health issues.
But if you guys tell me that art should be exclusive, so ok. I'll kindly ask English Canadians to give us back our poutine. And stop listening to "white" anglo-saxon music made by non whites and non anglo-saxons as to avoid any kind of cultural appropriation from now on. Even if I still find this concept completely ridiculous.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMFor instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians. Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2022, 01:50:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMFor instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians. Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.
This is a pretty well known critique. Not altogether invalid. Rocks roots in the blues are well attested. I don't see whats cunty about it?
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 12:09:05 PMI've never liked the "punching up/punching down" dichotomy. It basically means certain groups can never be criticized, regardless of how right or wrong they might be.
Yeah I don't think punching up/punching down helps in this context. I think I'm pretty relaxed about this as long as you acknowledge your sources - ideally if you point to them. I think that's the difference between appropriation and actually creativity/inspiration.
Quote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 01:50:18 PMA movie or tv series is a form of art, just as music. Norway and Denmark weren't involved in the making of the hugely popular tv Series Vikings about Ragnar Lothbrook and his sons.
White people of North European descent playing other white people of North European descent from a millennium ago. Many of the actors are probably descendents of real people characters in the show are based on. Even the most ott of not picker appropriation types would have trouble finding fault here.
QuoteThere was a tv series about Greek gods living in the modern world. There weren't any Greek actors, no Greek producers and it wasn't shot in Greece either. You had Americans pretending to be ancient Greek Gods.
Actors portraying fictional characters from their ancient cultural heritage. OK?
QuoteThe Rome TV series was made by the BBC. The lead actors were British.
Italy doesn't mind. Romes heritage belongs to Europe.
QuoteHow is all of this different than the white kid talking thrash and making crappy music?
Why is acting out old stories from which the original people stand in no way to profit different to ripping off less powerful folks in the here and now? Really?
QuoteShould we cancel Eminem because he's white?
Why would you do that?
QuoteI remember a black artist denouncing white singers who sang hip hop, saying it was black culture. Cultural appropriation. Country was for whites, hip hop, rap and soul was for Blacks.
Since Metal music is most definitely a predominantly white music style, most appreciated by white people and originally created by white folks from England. Do we forbid Welsh artists from performing this music? Should I follow the racist morons who call for black metal singers to go back to their jungle and stick to rap? I'd hate to do it, 'cause I really like diversity in metal, I like the Hu and their Mongol singing, I appreciate Quebec bands that sing about Viking folk tales, there a Spanish and Brazilian that I like listening too. I believe some Black Americans are great singers or guitar players in their bands. I really like Howard Jones and I think it's a shame he had to leave Killswitch Engage due to his health issues.
But if you guys tell me that art should be exclusive, so ok. I'll kindly ask English Canadians to give us back our poutine. And stop listening to "white" anglo-saxon music made by non whites and non anglo-saxons as to avoid any kind of cultural appropriation from now on. Even if I still find this concept completely ridiculous.
Your strawman attempts I find to be completely ridiculous.
That some people take this concept too far doesn't mean the concept is instantly invalid.
To use your own approach back at you :so it's OK for a wealthy American to travel to a poor island cut off from the modern world, record the music of the people who live there and then sell it at home (keeping the profits of course) saying "this is mine. I invented this."
Also FYI poutine is stolen from us :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2022, 12:38:28 PMI think context matters.
This is specifically about art not objects that one culture considers of purely aesthetic interest but have deep significance to another culture that is more than aesthetic (normally - though not always appropriated through colonialism) - for example the Benin sculptures, the Ethiopian Tabot, arguably the Maya codices.
I recently saw the picture of a white guy sporting a tatoo with Mayan and various Polynesian inspired art.
I didn't really care. Should I have been frustrated?
Cultural appropriation to me, would be if I made a sculpture similar in style to Inuit art and claim myself some bogus indigenous ancestry to sell it as genuine First Nations art.
There was this man in Quebec, no so long ago, he was the President of some First Nation movement (not recognized by other, legitimate FN organizations. He spoke about various indigenous issues. Turns out he was a white man with absolutely no indigenous ancestry. This, you see, is cultural appropriation.
Having a white theater actor perform the role of a black figure for 2 minutes does not really bother me though. It's like American actors speaking accented French in a tv series and passing of as French or Québécois. However, having a French actor play the role of a Québécois, now, that's disturbing! ;)
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 01:55:57 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2022, 01:50:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMFor instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians. Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.
This is a pretty well known critique. Not altogether invalid. Rocks roots in the blues are well attested. I don't see whats cunty about it?
"Ripping off" is not a critique. "Ripping off" is what makes it cunty, and you a fucking cunt.
The links between an Australian actor and a Danish Viking king are tenuous at best. There isn't much cultural similarities between the two.
Some of the actors may be descendants of real people characters, but the majority was not Scandinavian. Viking culture is definitely of Scandinavian origin. Not Canadian, even though they visited the continent. You seem to link culture only to skin color. Would that mean a black Scandinavian can claim no link to Viking culture because they were mostly whites?
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:03:23 PMActors portraying fictional characters from their ancient cultural heritage. OK?
Allright. So that means if we were to make a tv series about fictional Iroquois and fictional Hurons, we wouldn't need to bother with finding First Nations actors. Duly noted. :)
Same with any adaptation of Roots. Since Kunta Kinte is a fictional character, anyone could portray him. It could very well be a white South African. He'd be from Africa, so same cultural heritage?
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:03:23 PMQuoteThe Rome TV series was made by the BBC. The lead actors were British.
Italy doesn't mind. Romes heritage belongs to Europe.
Ah. So it's about minding. Yet, I often see lots of outrage from White people about this supposed cultural appropriation.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:03:23 PMQuoteHow is all of this different than the white kid talking thrash and making crappy music?
Why is acting out old stories from which the original people stand in no way to profit different to ripping off less powerful folks in the here and now? Really?
I don't see modern Scandinavia has being very powerful compared to America. It was clearly Americans taking advantage of a weaker nations culture.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:03:23 PMQuoteShould we cancel Eminem because he's white?
Why would you do that?
Because white kids should not play rap music. You just said so yourself it was problematic. I don't see how being rich or not influence the general white culture to which he belonged as a kid. He moved to a black neighborhood only in his teens. But that does not change he can't be culturally black since he's of the wrong skin color. According to what you just said, at least.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:03:23 PMThat some people take this concept too far doesn't mean the concept is instantly invalid.
To use your own approach back at you :so it's OK for a wealthy American to travel to a poor island cut off from the modern world, record the music of the people who live there and then sell it at home (keeping the profits of course) saying "this is mine. I invented this."
Also FYI poutine is stolen from us :contract:
I specifically gave clear examples of theft that I would consider cultural appropriation. You argument was, however, entirely based on skin color: a rich white kid can't sing rap music, and your response pretty much confirms it, only making an exception if you like the artist, independent on his "cultural" background which really means "white".
Culture isn't defined by the color of your skin. Or else, a black British isn't really British. He's just an African living in the UK. Which pretty much happens to sum up the position of some extremist political parties.
Quote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 02:09:11 PMI recently saw the picture of a white guy sporting a tatoo with Mayan and various Polynesian inspired art.
I didn't really care. Should I have been frustrated?
Profoundly suspicious. Obviously there are exceptions but, it's probably second only to the soul patch in signs of a probably bellend.
QuoteCultural appropriation to me, would be if I made a sculpture similar in style to Inuit art and claim myself some bogus indigenous ancestry to sell it as genuine First Nations art.
I think that's sort of what I mean with acknowledge your sources. Don't claim it's all you - and also don't claim some deeper, often more spiritual connection with that culture by virtue of owning or making art using its aesthetics (I feel like that happens a lot), because that's not the same as actually engaging with a culture.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2022, 02:35:36 PMQuote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 02:09:11 PMI recently saw the picture of a white guy sporting a tatoo with Mayan and various Polynesian inspired art.
I didn't really care. Should I have been frustrated?
Profoundly suspicious. Obviously there are exceptions but, it's probably second only to the soul patch in signs of a probably bellend.
(https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/MAC43_TRUDEAUTATTOO_POST01-1.jpg)
:ph34r:
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 01:55:57 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2022, 01:50:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMFor instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians. Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.
This is a pretty well known critique. Not altogether invalid. Rocks roots in the blues are well attested. I don't see whats cunty about it?
Ripping off, it's Vanilla Ice pretending to sing.
Elvis inspired himself from blues and developed a new music style. Heavy metal didn't rip off Wagner.
This is not Elvis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9a49oFalZE
It does not have much in common with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj0Rz-uP4Mk
And this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FeWJHUB8aU
is a cover of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgdzS4OSQ1M
I ain't no expert in Elvis' matters, but I don't see this as a rip off, a theft or whatever. Motley Crue recorded their own version of Jailhouse Rock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSftrS2g78
I don't think they were ripping off the King. I admit I have no idea how copyrights for such stuff works. And I can not tell you why Elvis was more popular than Roy Brown, it's out of my area of expertise. But I don't think this song was the one that made Elvis into an icon of Rock 'n 'Roll.
QuoteThe links between an Australian actor and a Danish Viking king are tenuous at best. There isn't much cultural similarities between the two.
Some of the actors may be descendants of real people characters, but the majority was not Scandinavian. Viking culture is definitely of Scandinavian origin. Not Canadian, even though they visited the continent. You seem to link culture only to skin color. Would that mean a black Scandinavian can claim no link to Viking culture because they were mostly whites?
Why do you think this matters?
People have very little in common with ancestors from a few centuries gone let alone a millennium.
QuoteAllright. So that means if we were to make a tv series about fictional Iroquois and fictional Hurons, we wouldn't need to bother with finding First Nations actors. Duly noted. :)
Same with any adaptation of Roots. Since Kunta Kinte is a fictional character, anyone could portray him. It could very well be a white South African. He'd be from Africa, so same cultural heritage?
Lol Wut?
I guess you think you've got some kind of a gotcha here but none of this makes any sense.
Canada conquered the native Americans. Native americans are still struggling with the ramifications of this today. This would be a perfect example of where cultural appropriation is 100% valid.
Why would a white south African be valid to play a black West African? Africa is quite large you know. Many would find fault even for casting a black Kenyan in that part let alone someone so unrelated as a white south African.
QuoteBecause white kids should not play rap music. You just said so yourself it was problematic. I don't see how being rich or not influence the general white culture to which he belonged as a kid. He moved to a black neighborhood only in his teens. But that does not change he can't be culturally black since he's of the wrong skin color. According to what you just said, at least.
Stop lying. I said nothing of the sort.
Race isn't the only factor in what makes up a person you know. Even in the particularly race obsessed US there are other aspects at play.
QuoteAh. So it's about minding. Yet, I often see lots of outrage from White people about this supposed cultural appropriation.
A funny example of this I remember is when people got upset about an American museum with a try on a kimono event, which the Japanese embassy then said to "awesome. Please try more kimono!"
You seem to think the fact that idiots with zero connection sometimes misuse it, is somehow an argument that that cultural appropriation can never be a valid criticism?
QuoteI don't see modern Scandinavia has being very powerful compared to America. It was clearly Americans taking advantage of a weaker nations culture.
1: its not their culture. Its their history. A history that the US as a North European colony shares.
2: Scandinavia is significantly better off than the US. It could be possible for Americans to rip Scandinavian culture still; getting rich making those Faroe jumpers for instance. But the chances for this are small.
QuoteI specifically gave clear examples of theft that I would consider cultural appropriation. You argument was, however, entirely based on skin color: a rich white kid can't sing rap music, and your response pretty much confirms it, only making an exception if you like the artist, independent on his "cultural" background which really means "white
Putin would be proud of this level of projection.
QuoteCulture isn't defined by the color of your skin. Or else, a black British isn't really British. He's just an African living in the UK. Which pretty much happens to sum up the position of some extremist political parties.
Odd you say this after just doing your darndest to argue otherwise....
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2022, 02:27:41 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 01:55:57 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2022, 01:50:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMFor instance Elvis ripping off black musicians was fine, he's hardly from the ruling class, though many of those who profited from him certainly deserve some ire.
Wow. Elvis ripping off black musicians. Christ, you're all a bunch of fucking cunts.
This is a pretty well known critique. Not altogether invalid. Rocks roots in the blues are well attested. I don't see whats cunty about it?
"Ripping off" is not a critique. "Ripping off" is what makes it cunty, and you a fucking cunt.
What pissed in your corn flakes today?
I didn't realise you were married to elvis.
Intruiging you missed the fact that I was defending him against this....
Incorporating ideas from other musicians is just what they do. It's rarely a ripoff.
I don't feel like a little white girl dressing up as Pocahontas is committing a sin either. Even adults going to a masked party, I don't really care if they're dressed as First Nations or Ancient Egyptians. They're not seriously pretending to be Egyptian Pharaos.
I read a book some time ago, where a people of fair skin, blue eyes and pale hairs arrived in a land where the rulers where of dark skin, brown eyes and black hair. Due to their physical difference, they were immediately assumed to be of an inferior race cursed by the Gods and they were enslaved.
It was a bit too obvious to miss the parallel being made. ;)
But, I kinda got myself thinking: If we remade Roots, with Black slavers and White slaves, would it be ok? Who would be pissed off the most, the left or the right? :P
Wakanda is a fictional, highly advanced country, somewhere in Africa.
The New York Times was raving about this positive representation of Africa in a Hollywood movie.
Didn't seem to matter much back then that Africa was large. It often doesn't seem to matter that Sub-Saharan Africa is culturally very different from the lands settled by the Berbers and the Arabs. But now, it seems suddenly really important talking about West and East and South Africa... I think this all demonstrate the bullshit of that cultural appropriation concept. It's an empty, meaningless concept for people who seek to be offended. The left's version of the angry white man.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:48:11 PMWhy do you think this matters?
People have very little in common with ancestors from a few centuries gone let alone a millennium.
You raised the matter yourself initially. British, Irish, Danish, Norwegians, Icelanders, Scots, Canadians, they're all the same people: Northern WHITE Europeans. But a White American can't portray a Black American, it's cultural appropriation. There seems to definitely be something as "Black" music for you, ripped off by evil Whites, so it seems the opposite is obvious: there would be such a thing as "White" music, and we have Blacks, Asians and other cultures ripping off that "White" music.
Or does this apply only to non Whites? There's Asian music, Polynesian music, Black Music, but the rest is just music? You are very hard to follow in your reasoning.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:48:11 PMRace isn't the only factor in what makes up a person you know. Even in the particularly race obsessed US there are other aspects at play.
You said you had a problem with a rich white kid from the neighborhood playing/singing gangsta rap.
Since lots of Black rappers are very rich individuals, have grown outside of city centers, in suburbs, I must assume that your problem is they are white. But Eminem seems to be exempt from your contempt, for some weird reason.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:48:11 PMA funny example of this I remember is when people got upset about an American museum with a try on a kimono event, which the Japanese embassy then said to "awesome. Please try more kimono!"
You seem to think the fact that idiots with zero connection sometimes misuse it, is somehow an argument that that cultural appropriation can never be a valid criticism?
A white gangsta rapper is not cultural appropriation. Everybody is free to make crappy music.
But you obviously have a problem with this.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:48:11 PM1: its not their culture. Its their history. A history that the US as a North European colony shares.
2: Scandinavia is significantly better off than the US. It could be possible for Americans to rip Scandinavian culture still; getting rich making those Faroe jumpers for instance. But the chances for this are small.
Culture derives from language and history. American culture was forged by its history and its myth. See Canadian culture for an example of what American culture would be today had they not rebelled against their legitimate rulers. They'd be filled to the brim with very nice Queen worshipping people respectful for authority. ;) :P
American culture would have been really different if France had not lost the 7 years war. American culture would certainly have been different without slavery and the Civil War.
Scandinavian culture is derived from their history, especially their Viking roots, it kinda shows in their modern languages. History and culture aren't mutually exclusive concepts, you know.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 02:48:11 PMOdd you say this after just doing your darndest to argue otherwise....
Now, who's making projections? :rolleyes:
Sigh. This is where the whole anti woke cult really shows itself to be such a threat to our society.
There can be zero room for nuance or logic.
This one stupid guy once said something ridiculous about how a thing is racism when it clearly isn't hence the entire concept of racism itself must be totally invalid and anyone who dares suggest it isn't must clearly completely agree with that stupid guy. Ha. Stupid left. Team right ftw!
More relevant than the idiotic insistence an American playing a viking is somehow wrong would be the current wave of colour blind casting and the wave of triggered snowflakes from black Anne boleyn. At least try and pick a sensible example.
It's interesting you're so obsessed with race here that you specifically ignored the rich and suburban part of the equation to moan about white gangster rappers being OK- though eminem a gangster rapper? Really?
A white gangster rapper could potentially be fine. A kid from an upper class background in Rhode Island going on about his rough background on the mean streets of Compton.... Aye...
Hes obviously free to do it. There's no law against it. But it's also quite right to call him out for being inauthentic. If he is outright copying the songs of a guy who from a deprived background? Then that's where appropriation has legal ramifications.
Culture derives from language and history indeed. And the vikings are a pretty major part of Anglo history and brought lots of words to the language.
Interesting you think the poshest bit of Copenhagen is more viking than a newfoundland outport.
Wakanda is an interesting one. It COULD have been very racist given its origins and place as "generic Africa but advanced" but the producers were successfully able to put a positive spin on this representation of Africa as a whole and avoid annoying anyone.
FYI West and East Africa are different places. The people look different. Potentially more genetic diversity there than between French and Chinese people. The people from the two often remark on this (hell. I have one Kenyan friend whose friends at home mockingly call him Sudanese because of his looks). White South Africans are obviously completely different again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2022, 03:43:56 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 02:39:34 PM*snip*
:ph34r:
:ph34r: Indeed.
Trudeau has gotten flack for the tattoo in the past. It's unclear who did the work (whether it was a Haida, or at least First Nations, tattoo artist), it's based on another work of art and he didn't get permission to use it. But then again the kind of people who tend to care about such things are more likely to be Liberal voters anyways.
And besides, they've already forgiven him for:
(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F7c4d6e24-1a32-11ec-95b9-6429167b0259.jpg?crop=640%2C360%2C6%2C160)
and
(https://i.insider.com/5a8fe95daae6051d008b4592?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
To be honest it does all add up to a particular type of person you meet on your gap year :lol:
I have no problem with what Barrister did or has ever done. Even what he did during that hiking trip back in 2002.
Quote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 01:24:49 PMA good case can be made when a country is ravaged by war and instability. And many of these countries, at the time where this art was picked by Europeans and their museums, were in such a state. I am totally uncertain that any art should be given back to Afghanistan if we own it in our vaults. But what do we do if we have given back art to a country and a new government comes in and declares such art heretical and wants to destroy it?
What if we keep the art and then a new government comes in here and declares such art heretical/perverted/too liberal and wants to destroy it?
Quote from: Solmyr on May 05, 2022, 03:08:52 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 01:24:49 PMA good case can be made when a country is ravaged by war and instability. And many of these countries, at the time where this art was picked by Europeans and their museums, were in such a state. I am totally uncertain that any art should be given back to Afghanistan if we own it in our vaults. But what do we do if we have given back art to a country and a new government comes in and declares such art heretical and wants to destroy it?
What if we keep the art and then a new government comes in here and declares such art heretical/perverted/too liberal and wants to destroy it?
Perhaps we could look at the last time such iconoclasm was permitted in each of the countries in question. Not a perfect guide to future occurrence, but surely better than pretending all situations are the same.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2022, 12:11:22 PMConsidering that owning art is difficult to distinguish from "displaying" art, it does matter a great deal - for reasons BB alluded to. Displaying art is telling a story, and this entails a degree of control from the person telling that story. Public institutions (or minimally public-facing institutions) can at least enable multiple stakeholders to have a voice through a variety of mechanism. Private collectors can usually dictate the terms.
Art, or esthetic objects of all sorts, have been traded forever, including to people outside one's own group. The difficulty, when it comes to the 19th century, is to figure out what where the transactions that were "free-ish" and which ones were more coerced by material or political difficulties and circumstances. Many flatten out all transactions into "colonial extractions": it seems evident when clearly sacred objects were sold by groups (or even individuals, unauthorized to do so) under duress. The case is much less clear say, in the case of tourist art of the 19th century, which Haudenosaunee or Mi'kmaq artists clearly produced to sell white tourists.
The article itself seems to be more of a critique of art as a commodity rather than, as BB put crudely put it, White people owning Black art.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 05, 2022, 03:08:52 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 01:24:49 PMA good case can be made when a country is ravaged by war and instability. And many of these countries, at the time where this art was picked by Europeans and their museums, were in such a state. I am totally uncertain that any art should be given back to Afghanistan if we own it in our vaults. But what do we do if we have given back art to a country and a new government comes in and declares such art heretical and wants to destroy it?
What if we keep the art and then a new government comes in here and declares such art heretical/perverted/too liberal and wants to destroy it?
The probability of that happening in an occidental country is much lower than for this to happen in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 12:04:47 PMCreating art influenced from other cultures-> It depends how its done, punching up/punching down and all that.
Is this punching up or punching down :unsure:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/99/67/ba9967d268c9dd6584656603de0e6647.jpg)
;)
Punching up/ down and cultural appropriation are different things. I don't see any benefit from conflating the two.
As far as the original article, most art does not appreciate in value. Some big names will (such as Basquiat referred to in the article), but almost never at the rate that the stock market does. Don Thomson explores this (and other quirks of the art market) in his book The Twelve Million Dollar Shark. Even a collector who buys art as an investment almost certainly appreciates the art he is buying; otherwise he would have been better off buying stocks.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2022, 04:03:08 PMPunching up/ down and cultural appropriation are different things. I don't see any benefit from conflating the two.
They're related.
Cultural appropriation is when someone from a powerful group copies and profits from the work of those from a less powerful group.
Someone from a less powerful group imitating the more powerful group though... If there's a problem there it's a very different one.
Power dynamics is a key part of it.
Groups need explicit power levels and defined parameters. Can African-Americans adopt cultural paraphernalia from Somalis? Should "Somalis" be one discrete group or many? How do you get permission? A system of cultural and racial systemization and copyrights is in order.
I was once told that Christians culturally appropriated Christmas from the Romans. Upon hearing that I was immediately sickened and have been haunted by that encounter ever since.
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2022, 02:20:32 PMQuote from: Solmyr on May 05, 2022, 03:08:52 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 01:24:49 PMA good case can be made when a country is ravaged by war and instability. And many of these countries, at the time where this art was picked by Europeans and their museums, were in such a state. I am totally uncertain that any art should be given back to Afghanistan if we own it in our vaults. But what do we do if we have given back art to a country and a new government comes in and declares such art heretical and wants to destroy it?
What if we keep the art and then a new government comes in here and declares such art heretical/perverted/too liberal and wants to destroy it?
The probability of that happening in an occidental country is much lower than for this to happen in Afghanistan.
We'll see what happens when the Fuhrer comes to power in the US in 2024. :P
Also, are we only talking about Afghanistan here? What about, say, Egypt? Or Kenya? Or India?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2022, 06:35:31 PMGroups need explicit power levels and defined parameters. Can African-Americans adopt cultural paraphernalia from Somalis? Should "Somalis" be one discrete group or many? How do you get permission? A system of cultural and racial systemization and copyrights is in order.
I was once told that Christians culturally appropriated Christmas from the Romans. Upon hearing that I was immediately sickened and have been haunted by that encounter ever since.
That's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.
In your example Somalis and African Americans have pretty much nothing to do with each other so I can't see any issue in general- though if it's a black American guy profiting off the work of Somalis with nothing going to the Somalis then it's definitely possible.
I don't think Raz is a right-winger.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 06, 2022, 02:41:14 AMI don't think Raz is a right-winger.
Are you sure? I remember him being centre right.
But anyway, I was referring to what he said there rather than anything about his beliefs in general, non right people just following the right wing view is again a problem.
The right's spin on these things ("its not real") has become the established understanding as its hardly the most important thing in the world and its such a easier slant to take than the far more complicated and muddy "It depends" left wing version.
In particular I've seen groups like Praguer U really keen to try and fit intersectionality into a right wing world view of rules and hierarchies in order to whip up anger and rejection.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 06, 2022, 12:46:03 AMAlso, are we only talking about Afghanistan here? What about, say, Egypt? Or Kenya? Or India?
We already know the Republicans are indexing books and retiring them from public libraries and such. But so far, they haven't gone into book burning territory. ;)
I was specifically talking about Afghanistan, but other countries are there in the list too. Occidental museums are very reluctant to give back the stuff they've collected over the years. You can add Greece in the list too.
I do not have a firm opinion on the subject, nor do I think I'm qualified enough to have one.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2022, 06:35:31 PMI was once told that Christians culturally appropriated Christmas from the Romans. Upon hearing that I was immediately sickened and have been haunted by that encounter ever since.
Halloween is a Pagan festival. You should not eat candies at all during Fall, to be on the safe side. ;)
Christians, and likely Muslim and Jews too, appropriated a lot of things from the pagan cultures that preceded them.
Quote from: Josquius on May 06, 2022, 02:57:33 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on May 06, 2022, 02:41:14 AMI don't think Raz is a right-winger.
Are you sure? I remember him being centre right.
But anyway, I was referring to what he said there rather than anything about his beliefs in general, non right people just following the right wing view is again a problem.
The right's spin on these things ("its not real") has become the established understanding as its hardly the most important thing in the world and its such a easier slant to take than the far more complicated and muddy "It depends" left wing version.
In particular I've seen groups like Praguer U really keen to try and fit intersectionality into a right wing world view of rules and hierarchies in order to whip up anger and rejection.
I think there is a fair argument to be made in good faith that these kinds of concerns are simply fraught - they are incredibly complex, and once you start down the path of trying to sort them out, you are going to immediately run into problematic territory, where one disadvantaged group is up against some other disadvantaged group.
That doesn't mean we should just ignore it, but it does mean that there is a discussion to be had beyond what the radical right cares about (or wants to ignore).
Surely this can be talked about without ever once even referencing what the crazy right wingers are doing to pretend the issue is all BS? I mean, this is Languish, we don't even really have crazy right wingers here at all...
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 09:52:54 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 06, 2022, 02:57:33 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on May 06, 2022, 02:41:14 AMI don't think Raz is a right-winger.
Are you sure? I remember him being centre right.
But anyway, I was referring to what he said there rather than anything about his beliefs in general, non right people just following the right wing view is again a problem.
The right's spin on these things ("its not real") has become the established understanding as its hardly the most important thing in the world and its such a easier slant to take than the far more complicated and muddy "It depends" left wing version.
In particular I've seen groups like Praguer U really keen to try and fit intersectionality into a right wing world view of rules and hierarchies in order to whip up anger and rejection.
I think there is a fair argument to be made in good faith that these kinds of concerns are simply fraught - they are incredibly complex, and once you start down the path of trying to sort them out, you are going to immediately run into problematic territory, where one disadvantaged group is up against some other disadvantaged group.
That doesn't mean we should just ignore it, but it does mean that there is a discussion to be had beyond what the radical right cares about (or wants to ignore).
Surely this can be talked about without ever once even referencing what the crazy right wingers are doing to pretend the issue is all BS? I mean, this is Languish, we don't even really have crazy right wingers here at all...
As I say their view has power and has become just accepted as the default. I do think its worth highlighting when the default view of an issue most people don't care about became the default because there is a group who have a very particular interest in it; and it may not be an interest that you approve of.
Its especially relevant when strawmen are being placed against a nutty version of the left wing view (albeit without labelling it such).
There's a huge difference in casting John Wayne as Genghis Khan and Scarlett Johansson as a fictional detective with a Japanese name that looks like an occidental woman in the source material.
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2022, 10:35:09 AMThere's a huge difference in casting John Wayne as Genghis Khan and Scarlett Johansson as a fictional detective with a Japanese name that looks like an occidental woman in the source material.
Yes.
Though she was ethnically Japanese in the source.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/09/why-do-the-japanese-draw-themselves-as-white/340084/
Quote from: Josquius on May 06, 2022, 02:00:06 AMThat's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.
This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2022, 11:13:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 06, 2022, 02:00:06 AMThat's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.
This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.
I am still unclear what the practical utility of identity oppression principles are under hard or soft "science".
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2022, 09:03:30 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2022, 11:13:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 06, 2022, 02:00:06 AMThat's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.
This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.
I am still unclear what the practical utility of identity oppression principles are under hard or soft "science".
You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?
Jesus, dude, read what he wrote.
Quote from: Josquius on May 19, 2022, 10:31:15 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 19, 2022, 09:03:30 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2022, 11:13:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 06, 2022, 02:00:06 AMThat's just the thing that right wingers fail to get about this sort of thing. It's not hard science. There's no hierarchy of oppression where a black disabled lesbian is instantly always right.
A lot of it is very case by case and heavily situational.
This is a sermon that is more appropriately delivered to the PC left IMO.
I am still unclear what the practical utility of identity oppression principles are under hard or soft "science".
You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?
Yes, I do get why those things are bad.
What I don't get is how creating or thinking about a hierarchy of oppression is helpful towards fixing those problems.
As an aside, when you wrote " You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?" did you really think in your head "Wow, Berkut doesn't get why these things are bad!"
Really? Really really? Was there honestly some question in your mind as to whether or not I think those things are bad?
I suspect there might have been such a question, since my stance on those things is pretty well understood, I think.
So what is the purpose of asking a question you already know the answer to?
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2022, 10:57:10 AMYes, I do get why those things are bad.
What I don't get is how creating or thinking about a hierarchy of oppression is helpful towards fixing those problems.
That's not the reason the idea of the hierarchy of oppression exists.
The hierarchy of oppression exists specifically to daemonise and undermine the idea that intolerance and privilege is a thing.
QuoteAs an aside, when you wrote " You don't get why racism, homophobia, etc...is bad?" did you really think in your head "Wow, Berkut doesn't get why these things are bad!"
Really? Really really? Was there honestly some question in your mind as to whether or not I think those things are bad?
I suspect there might have been such a question, since my stance on those things is pretty well understood, I think.
So what is the purpose of asking a question you already know the answer to?
Because as you correctly guessed the actual question was I don't get what you mean at all. Taking your post sans all context that's what it seemed to say though in context you obviously didn't mean that.
Quote from: Josquius on May 19, 2022, 11:05:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 19, 2022, 10:57:10 AMYes, I do get why those things are bad.
What I don't get is how creating or thinking about a hierarchy of oppression is helpful towards fixing those problems.
That's not the reason the idea of the hierarchy of oppression exists.
The hierarchy of oppression exists specifically to daemonise and undermine the idea that intolerance and privilege is a thing.
I suspect that its the opposite - those who want to avoid hard questions around actual, practical realities behind their ideas use the existence of those who want to deny that intolerance or privilege exists to avoid having to answer questions they don't know the answer to.
No, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege. I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy. I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2022, 01:15:09 PMNo, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege. I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy. I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".
That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.
I have no idea what the discussion is about.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 02:10:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2022, 01:15:09 PMNo, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege. I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy. I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".
That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.
I believe for cultural appropriation to have any validity it needs to be applied to more than just Americans. I also believe that an American can play a non-American in an American film.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2022, 02:53:12 PMI believe for cultural appropriation to have any validity it needs to be applied to more than just Americans. I also believe that an American can play a non-American in an American film.
Yeah, Americans can play non-Americans as far as I'm concerned. And yeah, cultural appropriation can absolutely be applied in all kinds of directions... though I think Americans are the ones who have identified the dynamic and are - generally - the ones who care the most about it.
Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 02:10:29 PMThat's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.
See also African-American actors comments about all the Black British actors going over there and hoovering up roles.
I find it strange how there's talk of a hierarchy of oppression when that comes, from my understanding, from a take on intersectionality which is by definition not about hierarchies but intersections of different identities.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 03:05:53 PMYeah, Americans can play non-Americans as far as I'm concerned. And yeah, cultural appropriation can absolutely be applied in all kinds of directions... though I think Americans are the ones who have identified the dynamic and are - generally - the ones who care the most about it.
Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.
Yes. I am sure that the Germans are livid that Brits play Germans in films all the time, and then don't even have the courtesy to consult with Mr. Germany and get permission, and then don't speak proper idiomatic German. Alan Rickman playing Hans Gruber in
Die Hard, for instance. They even made the German the bad guy! There oughtta be a law.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 02:10:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2022, 01:15:09 PMNo, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege. I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy. I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".
That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.
What was inaccurate about the portrayal of the culture?
I don't understand this - are you saying that the the movie Blackhawk Down erased Somali culture by being made with American actors instead of...what? Going and finding Somalis to play Somalis?
Surely Somali culture has more to it then the nationality of the people playing a Somali in some movie.
I could understand this complaint better if it went deeper then the color of the actors skin, but it doesn't even go that deep.
If they had Somali actors playing the Somalis, but actually represented Somali culture inaccurately in its content, would that have been better, or worse?
Or is this just a more generic annoyance at Americans making movies where they don't get the portrayed culture just right, or even close to right?
I don't see how the nationality of the actors enter into it.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 03:05:53 PMQuote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2022, 02:53:12 PMI believe for cultural appropriation to have any validity it needs to be applied to more than just Americans. I also believe that an American can play a non-American in an American film.
Yeah, Americans can play non-Americans as far as I'm concerned. And yeah, cultural appropriation can absolutely be applied in all kinds of directions... though I think Americans are the ones who have identified the dynamic and are - generally - the ones who care the most about it.
Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.
What would getting this right look like?
If we were as good at this as we could reasonably expect to be, how would Black Hawk Down be different in a way that would make everyone say "Gosh, those guys did a bang up job, and really represented all the potentially oppressed people involved really well!"
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 03:05:53 PMNonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.
Who was pretending to be Somalis though, other then the actors (who by definition of acting are always pretending)?
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2022, 03:39:13 PMYes. I am sure that the Germans are livid that Brits play Germans in films all the time, and then don't even have the courtesy to consult with Mr. Germany and get permission, and then don't speak proper idiomatic German. Alan Rickman playing Hans Gruber in Die Hard, for instance. They even made the German the bad guy! There oughtta be a law.
I don't know if I'd classify Germans as a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV, especially since they have a pretty robust production output of their own.
... though apparently there's a bit of a Somali film industry in Columbus, Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliwood). So that's kind of neat.
Berkut, you make a whole bunch of points. What's the discussion you'd like to have here?
I can't remember black hawk down.
Though African Americans playing Somalis does sound quite painful. I can see why Somalis would be annoyed.
At least with a brit playing a German you've got the right ethnic group. Or at least someone who can broadly pass for the other (ala Ben Kingsley playing people from a broad swathe of the world from Spain to India)
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 19, 2022, 03:38:33 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 02:10:29 PMThat's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.
See also African-American actors comments about all the Black British actors going over there and hoovering up roles.
I find it strange how there's talk of a hierarchy of oppression when that comes, from my understanding, from a take on intersectionality which is by definition not about hierarchies but intersections of different identities.
Intersectionality is where the right make up the hierarchy of oppression idea from though.
YMMV to what extent its a knowing lie vs a genuine but failed attempt to try and explain a complex left wing concept of interconnecting relationships and systemic problems into a simple right wing box of hierarchies and solid binary rules.
There is a pretty good video on YouTube I saw ages ago responding to a prager u take on intersectionality, it was quite eye opening to see how utterly wrong they get it.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 03:54:20 PMI don't know if I'd classify Germans as a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV, especially since they have a pretty robust production output of their own.
How high on the Hierarchy of Oppression does a group have to be to qualify as "a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV?"
Should the Cheyenne be upset that Dan George (a Tsleil-Waututh) played one in
Little Big Man, or the Cherokee that he played one in
Outlaw Josey Wales? They aren't. The Cheyenne made him an honorary member of their tribe.
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2022, 06:30:46 PMHow high on the Hierarchy of Oppression does a group have to be to qualify as "a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV?"
I don't know anything about the "hierarchy of oppression", so I couldn't say. I can say that I'm not aware of Somalis appearing much in mainstream Film and TV, though I could be wrong.
I will also say that if a group of people feel they are misrepresented or short-changed in how they are shown in media, the decent thing is to listen to them in good faith.
QuoteShould the Cheyenne be upset that Dan George (a Tsleil-Waututh) played one in Little Big Man, or the Cherokee that he played one in Outlaw Josey Wales? They aren't. The Cheyenne made him an honorary member of their tribe.
It is entirely up to the Cheyenne and Cherokee - collectively and individually - how they feel about how they are represented in media. That's kind of the whole point.
So if Somalis feel they were well represented in
Black Hawk Down (and I don't know how they feel collectively or individually, nor do I have an opinion of the quality of how they were represented - I'm only going on what's posted in this thread) then great. And if they don't, then I think it's reasonable to listen to their critique and see if it can be done better next time.
Whether Somalis feel let down about how they're represented in a movie, that's entirely up to them. But the decent thing is, IMO, to listen to them.
What if a vocal few care, but the majority don't? Who do we appease?
Quote from: HVC on May 19, 2022, 07:42:41 PMWhat if a vocal few care, but the majority don't? Who do we appease?
We listen and decide what seems the most reasonable, same as with any other issue where there are differing voices.
If the majority voice that they're fine with it, then obviously that outweighs the few who aren't.
If the majority doesn't express an opinion either way, and a minority are vocal and care then the standard is to assume that their sentiment is also shared by some of the folks who say nothing; while if no-one is expressing a contrary view, it's probably not prudent to assume they all agree with whatever is the most convenient for you.
But if you suspect the majority doesn't agree with the vocal minority, maybe spend a bit of time asking them in good faith and listening to the answers rather than just projecting your preferred position on them "silent majority" style.
I dunno though, I don't think responding to "hey it'd be cool if people from my community had input on how we're portrayed and if details we cared about were reflected" is appeasement. I do get that it's annoying of it's put more aggressively, but it doesn't really change the reasonableness of the request even if it's put as a demand.
OK, isn't that what we are doing - deciding what seems most reasonable?
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 09:18:43 PMQuote from: HVC on May 19, 2022, 07:42:41 PMWhat if a vocal few care, but the majority don't? Who do we appease?
But if you suspect the majority doesn't agree with the vocal minority, maybe spend a bit of time asking them in good faith and listening to the answers rather than just projecting your preferred position on them "silent majority" style.
This goe for those whose "projected preferred position" is that we should define various groups by their identity and where they sit on the oppression hierarchy as well.
That is very much a two way street. Assuming that the vocal minority has a point is just as likely to be coming from preferred position as assuming they do not.
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2022, 10:11:41 PMOK, isn't that what we are doing - deciding what seems most reasonable?
Yup.
How do you know what the majority voice is?
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2022, 10:15:01 PMThis goe for those whose "projected preferred position" is that we should define various groups by their identity and where they sit on the oppression hierarchy as well.
That is very much a two way street. Assuming that the vocal minority has a point is just as likely to be coming from preferred position as assuming they do not.
I think that typically the assumption is that "for every person who writes in to say something, there's X more at home who agree" across customer relations, politics, reviews and so on - including public sentiment. Obviously in this day an age, plenty of people are committed to making a few voices seem like they represent a majority and we should be aware of that.
If a number of voices from a community says [something], and none say not-[something], then I think absent any other context or counter-indications the reasonable position is to assume [something] is a good representation of the community's sentiment.
As for the topic at hand'm just going on what Raz said - that Somalis were dissatisfied with how they were represented in
Blackhawk Down - and taking it at face value. If that's not true - or, say, if all the Somalis you've talked to have told you they truly don't give a fuck, or that they think the movie is great and spot on, or whatever; or if I dunno the Ambassador from Somalia said "that's really great, good job" - that's absolutely legitimate. Maybe Raz was wrong, or overstated things a bit, and the number of Somalis expressing dissatisfaction at the portrayal in
Black Hawk Down was really quite low or non-existent. If so, that's cool.
But if Raz was right and a non-trivial amount of Somali voices weighed in on the matter, and the majority said some variation of "the way you portrayed Somalis kind of sucks", then I think the reasonable thing is to ask "how do we make it not suck next time."
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2022, 12:15:10 AMHow do you know what the majority voice is?
You're the one who made the statement that Somalis complained about it. I believed you.
I can only speak for the Somalis interviewed for the news story I read over a decade ago. The article also mentioned that the Somalis in the theater cheered when the helicopter was shot down. So there's that. Whether or not that is the opinion of the majority, or even if "Somali" is right group to even be talking about, is not clear to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2022, 12:51:27 AMI can only speak for the Somalis interviewed for the news story I read over a decade ago. The article also mentioned that the Somalis in the theater cheered when the helicopter was shot down. So there's that. Whether or not that is the opinion of the majority, or even if "Somali" is right group to even be talking about, is not clear to me.
I see.
I guess there isn't much to talk about then.
I'd venture to say the majority of Somalis don't give a shit if American actors portray them in American movies.
Why should I care whether the Somalis in Black Hawk Down were played by Somalis or not?
I remember thinking it unusual that one of the Somali lieutenants in Black Hawk Down looked to my untrained eye to be from West Africa somewhere. At least not from Somalia. But I have no idea if the character was based on a real person or not, and if so what that person looked like or was from. And the citizenship of the actor of course I have no idea of, and that seems to me to be completely uninteresting.
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2022, 12:18:45 AMQuote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2022, 12:15:10 AMHow do you know what the majority voice is?
You're the one who made the statement that Somalis complained about it. I believed you.
I guess me perspective is that "Somalis complained about it" isn't really that interesting.
I think for any movie that portrays some other nationality or ethnicity, it is 100% the case that you can find someone who will complain about how they were portrayed. I mean that literally.
Name me a movie that has a group of people who are the antagonists and are largely represented in that movie, and I can assure you there are people who think they were not fairly portrayed.
And you know what? 99% of the time, they are almost certainly correct.
Goodfellas doe not portray Italian Americans correctly. They complained about it (and every other mob movie). I am sure there are Germans who think they got a shitty representation in Saving Private Ryan, and as someone who knows something about WW2, I can pick apart any number of things that *could* be considered unfair and detrimental.
Southerners probably hate how they were portrayed in Django Unchained, and Northerners think Gone With the Wind gave them a bad showing.
THe thing is, they are all (in some sense) correct. Because that is the nature of story telling - it is an exercise in entertainment constrained by the medium where the intent is not to be a documentary on the cultural nuances of some ethnic or national group, but rather an exciting action flick about American soldiers, told from an American perspective, with an American audience in mind.
Now, that doesn't mean they cannot be mindful of the impacts of that portrayal, but how mindful should they be? Should they make the movie a less entertaining movie in order to spend some more time showing how Somali's are not what we think? Maybe - I think that is a choice for those who make the movie, but I don't think it is clear at all that they ought to risk making a worse movie, because even if they do - I am still 100% certain someone could go find some Somalis who will say they didn't like the way they were portrayed.
So yeah, I guess I am saying that I don't agree that "we should listen" just because someone, somewhere, went and asked a Somali what they thought of how Somali's were portrayed. Because that doesn't actually give us any information. We know before we ask that question that we can and will find some people who will answer that the portrayal was not as good as it could have been, because making the portrayal as good as it can be is not the intent of Black Hawk Down, and it is human nature to bitch about how your group is represented.
Quote from: The Brain on May 20, 2022, 03:19:43 AMI remember thinking it unusual that one of the Somali lieutenants in Black Hawk Down looked to my untrained eye to be from West Africa somewhere. At least not from Somalia. But I have no idea if the character was based on a real person or not, and if so what that person looked like or was from. And the citizenship of the actor of course I have no idea of, and that seems to me to be completely uninteresting.
I think you have to have a somewhat trained eye to even note that.
I sure as hell have zero idea what would distinguish some person being from West Africa versus East Africa.
I doubt I could tell someone from Eastern Europe from Western, for that matter.
There are far far far far far far greater differences between peoples in Africa than in Europe. It is normally relatively easy to se the general difference between Africans living on the Horn to Africans living on the Guinean Coast (or elsewhere).
Compare for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_people).
On the other hand there are for example bantus living in Somalia, they might not be so easy to distinguish from west africans.
I don't dispute that those differences exist, I am just totally ignorant of them. I mean it's a really fucking big continent after all.
But like you said, people move around and such.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 20, 2022, 02:10:49 AMI'd venture to say the majority of Somalis don't give a shit if American actors portray them in American movies.
Actually, they were British actors for the most part.
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2022, 12:18:45 AMQuote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2022, 12:15:10 AMHow do you know what the majority voice is?
You're the one who made the statement+20 that Somalis complained about it. I believed you.
All such complaints are going to be made by a minority. You can't interview the majority. The majority can't complain about cultural appropriation because the majority can't be in the same place at one time.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2022, 10:24:59 AMQuote from: Jacob on May 20, 2022, 12:18:45 AMQuote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2022, 12:15:10 AMHow do you know what the majority voice is?
You're the one who made the statement+20 that Somalis complained about it. I believed you.
All such complaints are going to be made by a minority. You can't interview the majority. The majority can't complain about cultural appropriation because the majority can't be in the same place at one time.
So can't katmai.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2022, 09:31:23 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on May 20, 2022, 02:10:49 AMI'd venture to say the majority of Somalis don't give a shit if American actors portray them in American movies.
Actually, they were British actors for the most part.
Damn Brits, stealing our jobs. <_<
Actually, the Somalis who saw the film were pleased with how they were represented according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/01/22/blackhawk.screening/). They disagreed with some of the history it told, but thought the Somalis in the film were portrayed as very brave and victorious.
The film didn't really deal with Somali culture. Films that do deal with non-Western cultures can be superficial (e.g. Little Big Man) because the director doesn't care, or can be quite accurate (e.g. The Last Wave) if the director believes that fidelity adds to the film's value.
It's going to be hard for a director to get the money to do the research and hire the expert advisors unless the backers are convinced that it is a worthwhile investment.